Tattoos licit?
#71
(06-23-2009, 01:48 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 01:41 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: There's no reason to lump "Lam" in with 'greys.' Crowley had this 'encounter' (via the "Amalantrah working," an occult 'experiment' if you will)

in 1917

"Greys" as such were not even known at the time.
Correct, the UFO hype only happened after the Roswell Incident and a fake video (admitted to be fake by the person who filmed it). However, the "grey" like being as a concept has been around for a while.
What 'fake video,' please be more specific. There have been so, so many. The first "UFO hype" is widely considered to be the late 40's 'saucer flap' after the Kenneth Arnold report.

(06-23-2009, 01:48 AM)Rosarium Wrote: If, however, the greys are not related to Lam, why did you bring up Lam in relation to that tattoo, which was clearly about Greys in popular culture (there aren't more than one "Lam" as far as we know)?
I think you expect others to try a lot harder to understand you than you do yourself to understand anyone else.

That being said, I'm just saying that "Lam" isn't typically in the context of a 'UFO' discussion. That I and very, very few others connected such dots is, well, novel, not in the sense of a discovery, but in applying one context to another. When Crowley had this experience, and in the ritualistic context, it is quite unlikely that he would have labeled it such. Only in retrospect (after decades of 'grey' encounters) does this seem co-incidental, and...'conspicuous.' It is very likely that Crowley would have put Lam in the 'occult' context, not the 'extraterrestrial.' Few people even today lump those together.

I'm personally willing to do it of course, but it presupposes someone has arrived at the same conclusion as myself, which is a huge, unlikely, assumption. Such conclusions would require exposure to some fairly disparate topics (or a very odd personal experience, which nonetheless would still be outside the norm of how the culture at large sees these phenomena) <-- should that be plural?

(06-23-2009, 01:48 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
Quote:Oh, and you're a control freak to usher this thread into that one, I brought it up in the context of tattoos: that I posit that the imagery you src'ed was in fact a demonic depiction.
Why am I a control freak? I was providing grounds for further discussion on this particular topic, as I found our opposing views too extreme to ignore. I mean, if they are demonic, then I'd surely want to know that right?
You're a control freak for this and other reasons. You always want a discussion to be on your terms, using your terms, respecting your weird conventions, and permitting your passive-aggressiveness with no retort. Acting shocked and surprised that someone would react with annoyance is completely uncredible, as you certainly know after decades of life that such conversation practices elicit such responses. I don't buy your 'obtuse' act-- it's willful.

I've not 'called you out' typically in a post except in exasperation briefly, but since you asked in a post, I've replied in kind. Any further personal beefs must be via PM.

(06-23-2009, 01:48 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I want to discuss this topic in more detail for my own edification and that of others. This is the purpose of a forum. Why do you need to attack my person?

ibid. bolded for emphasis.
Reply
#72
(06-23-2009, 02:02 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: What 'fake video,' please be more specific. There have been so, so many. The first "UFO hype" is widely considered to be the late 40's 'saucer flap' after the Kenneth Arnold report.
The alien autopsy video. (I didn't open the video for technical reasons, but it seems to be the one I am considering. I am sorry if it is more than, or not, the video. It should show a bunch of people in black and white disecting what appears to be a "grey" and removing "organs" rather carelessly)

(06-23-2009, 01:48 AM)Rosarium Wrote: That being said, I'm just saying that "Lam" isn't typically in the context of a 'UFO' discussion. That I and very, very few others connected such dots is, well, novel, not in the sense of a discovery, but in applying one context to another. When Crowley had this experience, and in the ritualistic context, it is quite unlikely that he would have labeled it such. Only in retrospect (after decades of 'grey' encounters) does this seem co-incidental, and...'conspicuous.' It is very likely that Crowley would have put Lam in the 'occult' context, not the 'extraterrestrial.' Few people even today lump those together.
Good points. Perhaps there are more connections? I'll look for them.

Quote:I'm personally willing to do it of course, but it presupposes someone has arrived at the same conclusion as myself, which is a huge, unlikely, assumption. Such conclusions would require exposure to some fairly disparate topics (or a very odd personal experience, which nonetheless would still be outside the norm of how the culture at large sees these phenomena) <-- should that be plural?
Yes, it should be plural, because you qualified it with "these", not "this". Could you state your conclusions more explicitly besides they are demonic? What do you think of the casual references to these greys?


Quote:You're a control freak for this and other reasons. You always want a discussion to be on your terms, using your terms, respecting your weird conventions, and permitting your passive-aggressiveness with no retort. Acting shocked and surprised that someone would react with annoyance is completely uncredible, as you certainly know after decades of life that such conversation practices elicit such responses. I don't buy your 'obtuse' act-- it's willful.

I've not 'called you out' typically in a post except in exasperation briefly, but since you asked in a post, I've replied in kind. Any further personal beefs must be via PM.
What discussion do I want to be on my terms and what are my weird conventions? When I started the thread, I did want the thread to address the original topic at least initially (although I don't mind it being taken in other directions, I'd like the initial posts to be on topic, because I made it for that topic). I am only 21, so my decades of life also include childhood...not quite so experienced.

I don't know what you mean by my obtuse act. I am not acting about anything. There isn't anything on which to call me out that I know. I'm not hiding anything with any sort of deceit.
Reply
#73
(06-23-2009, 01:54 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 01:51 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: i've always believed aliens just to be demons. it does make sense that those doing occult shit would be the ones these things would visit. that's not to say they don't torment others who dont partake in the occult. just sayin.
really i never dabbled with any occult i found it way to creepy very scary shit. not like your rubbin a fat  Buddhas belly while eating at the lucky money restaurant down wind of china town. this stuff is real. i dunno. Lam kinda creeps me out. never saw that thing before.
avoided crowly like the plague. i do know the fascists in Italy chased him out of Sicily for drinking cats blood in cafalu or somethin. hes lucky they didnt kill him. but hes getting his eternal reward now thats for sure.
I did google for more information and found this: (Warning, big image of Lam): Link removed.

While the first image of Lam didn't bother me, that one sent a shiver up my back. However, many things do that, especially late at night and when it concerns such things, due to past experiences.

"Lam" is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg (I must say this, lest Rosarium take me literally). Check out Vallee's "Passport to Magonia" or "Messengers of Deception". Both I think out of print, but there are hundreds or thousands of such similarities. Check this out: http://www.mt.net/~watcher/quotes.html  <-- pretty much anyone who has researched the phenomenon (as I have, for reasons I do not fully understand) for any period of time eventually arrives at this conspicuous overlap.

What got my curiosity piqued was this guy I knew in High School. He was heavy into the black magic/satanism thing. Not just for shock value, he was actually pretty committed and rationalized it well (not that that's admirable). Anyway, he told a story about such encounters, little grey guys around his bed. One thing, he was not a liar AFAIK, so it was kinda hard to blow off.  He seemed to think it was absolutely connected to what he'd been doing/rituals/etc. It certainly made me think of (at the time) the "Prince of the power of this air"  (Ephesians 2:2) which I always thought one of the odder monikers for the enemy.
Reply
#74
(06-23-2009, 02:00 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: thanks for the warning. yeah some weird thing with that page did something to me eyes

I wish I hadn't looked at that image. I could have sworn I saw the mouth moving a few times!
Reply
#75
(06-23-2009, 02:10 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: "Lam" is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg (I must say this, lest Rosarium take me literally). Check out Vallee's "Passport to Magonia" or "Messengers of Deception". Both I think out of print, but there are hundreds or thousands of such similarities. Check this out: http://www.mt.net/~watcher/quotes.html  <-- pretty much anyone who has researched the phenomenon (as I have, for reasons I do not fully understand) for any period of time eventually arrives at this conspicuous overlap.

What got my curiosity piqued was this guy I knew in High School. He was heavy into the black magic/satanism thing. Not just for shock value, he was actually pretty committed and rationalized it well (not that that's admirable). Anyway, he told a story about such encounters, little grey guys around his bed. One thing, he was not a liar AFAIK, so it was kinda hard to blow off.  He seemed to think it was absolutely connected to what he'd been doing/rituals/etc. It certainly made me think of (at the time) the "Prince of the power of this air"  (Ephesians 2:2) which I always thought one of the odder monikers for the enemy.

I'm familiar with that idiom about icebergs, but thanks :) I'll try to find those texts.

About this guy you knew, did he use drugs? (not that I don't believe you, just that I have a lot of experience with people who use drugs, and I find it very, very hard to believe somethings they say, although I believe they perceived what they did).
Reply
#76
(06-23-2009, 02:12 AM)il_lebbroso Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 02:00 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: thanks for the warning. yeah some weird thing with that page did something to me eyes

I wish I hadn't looked at that image. I could have sworn I saw the mouth moving a few times!

If it did seem to, it could be animated. Either way, since it creeps more than me out, I'll bolden the warning.
Reply
#77
(06-23-2009, 02:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 02:02 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: What 'fake video,' please be more specific. There have been so, so many. The first "UFO hype" is widely considered to be the late 40's 'saucer flap' after the Kenneth Arnold report.
The alien autopsy video. (I didn't open the video for technical reasons, but it seems to be the one I am considering. I am sorry if it is more than, or not, the video. It should show a bunch of people in black and white disecting what appears to be a "grey" and removing "organs" rather carelessly)
Ah, that video. Well then I could not disagree with you more then. The 'UFO hype' predated that faked mid-90's video by half a century. It might have rekindled this subject in the culture at large, but this was hardly the 'beginnings' of any sort of hype.


(06-23-2009, 02:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
Quote:I'm personally willing to do it of course, but it presupposes someone has arrived at the same conclusion as myself, which is a huge, unlikely, assumption. Such conclusions would require exposure to some fairly disparate topics (or a very odd personal experience, which nonetheless would still be outside the norm of how the culture at large sees these phenomena) <-- should that be plural?
Yes, it should be plural, because you qualified it with "these", not "this". Could you state your conclusions more explicitly besides they are demonic? What do you think of the casual references to these greys?

What do I think of the casual references to these greys? What do you mean? Are you asking what do I think if their 'symbology,' their visages/images or their meme appearing everywhere? Not sure what you mean here?


(06-23-2009, 02:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote: What discussion do I want to be on my terms and what are my weird conventions?
PM only. If you desire to talk about it, that will be the only way I will do so.

(06-23-2009, 02:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote: When I started the thread, I did want the thread to address the original topic at least initially (although I don't mind it being taken in other directions, I'd like the initial posts to be on topic, because I made it for that topic).
Which thread? This one? I started this one. And I don't mind this thread getting hijacked at this point because I think everyone 'weighed in' as much as they were going to. I got my answer: there isn't one.

(06-23-2009, 02:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I don't know what you mean by my obtuse act. I am not acting about anything. There isn't anything on which to call me out that I know. I'm not hiding anything with any sort of deceit.
I lapse into criticizing you in-post, I don't like doing that. That's 'calling someone out,' mea culpa, but I got po'ed. Further discussions will need to be via PM. Please. If you want to discuss further.
Reply
#78
(06-23-2009, 01:54 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I did google for more information and found this: (Warning, big image of Lam): link removed
There is a reason I didn't link this in the first place, but quoted it. I wish you hadn't.
Reply
#79
(06-23-2009, 02:22 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 01:54 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I did google for more information and found this: (Warning, big image of Lam): http://www.excludedmiddle.com/LAMstatement.html
There is a reason I didn't link this in the first place, but quoted it. I wish you hadn't.

I see. I'll remove it. It doesn't really add anything people can't get from googling it on their own anyway.
Reply
#80
(06-23-2009, 01:51 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: avoided crowly like the plague. i do know the fascists in Italy chased him out of Sicily for drinking cats blood in cafalu or somethin. hes lucky they didnt kill him. but hes getting his eternal reward now thats for sure.
You should see the paintings he 'decorated' the walls at that house with. Well, perhaps you shouldn't actually. The owner, an older woman, painted over them, she said she swore the eyes moved, etc. They were painted with, shall we say, unorthodox materials. There are likely properties Crowley was seeking using such materials-- I suspect.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)